Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Given what you now know about equipment infractions across all major team sports in the US, why do you think Brady deserves a suspension amounting to 12.5 percent of the season (forget the penalty for the coverup) when no league -- including the NFL!!! -- suspends players for anything close to that amount for similar infractions? That's an actual FACT, and that's why I always thought your argument in defense of the actual penalty was a bit half-baked -- the thinking of a prosecutorial mind (rather than a fair mind).I have explained why a dozen times already in this thread. If he just let a little air out of a ball on the sideline one game I think it should be a slap on the wrist. Small fine. No suspension. I think that since it has gone on for more than a year (granted not in this same way), but more importantly that the balls were ready for the game, they stole them from the refs, in a Championship game, brought them all to a hiding place and altered them all, the game ball in question by over 15%, makes it an entirely different scenario. I guess one game would have sufficed for one time caught this way. But they did this multiple games. That's a fact. So another game seems reasonable to me. One for the championship game and because of how it was done stealing them all from out under the referees, and one game for all of the other times they did it (the Deflator goes back a year or more) is reasonable to me. If he would have just said I screwed up at the beginning, I just wanted them as low as could be, and I'm sorry, I think that no games and a 50k fine or so would have been fine and we never would have learned about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 What does it matter what team he cheers for when it comes to discussing this subject? His thoughts on this issue are well thought out and well expressed. If you disagree with his position that is your prerogative. His position, and mine also, are clearly a minority view on this topic. But whether he is a Bills fan or Patriot fan or Giants fan it is irrelevant to the discussion. I consider Brady to be one of the top qbs in the history of modern football. It has no bearing on the position (same as Pneumonic's) I have taken on this lighting rod issue. I fervently root for the Bills but my historical loyalties to the team has nothing to do with my take on this issue. The issues that Pneumonic has raised with how the commissioner has conducted himself in this matter are reasonable topics to discuss. Actually, he's been suspiciously pro-Patriots, has taken every opportunity to slam the league, and has voluntarily ignored perfectly reasonable content that runs counter to his diatribe. Not to mention that he's avoided answering the question directly on more than one occasion. That doesn't strike you as odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Actually, he's been suspiciously pro-Patriots, has taken every opportunity to slam the league, and has voluntarily ignored perfectly reasonable content that runs counter to his diatribe. Not to mention that he's avoided answering the question directly on more than one occasion. That doesn't strike you as odd? No! His positions correspond to mine. In addition, I rooted for the Pats in the SB against the Seahawks. So does that make my views suspicious or invalid? Am I a traitor to whatever imaginary cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Was that too complicated a question for a "scientist"? While perhaps late for your timeline, I did answered you (earlier today) after I read your query. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 More science in Brady's favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Actually, he's been suspiciously pro-Patriots, has taken every opportunity to slam the league, and has voluntarily ignored perfectly reasonable content that runs counter to his diatribe. Not to mention that he's avoided answering the question directly on more than one occasion. That doesn't strike you as odd? I believed, from the time I first crunched the deflate #'s, that the science and protocols taken to ensure sound science, were terribly flawed and nowhere near satisfactory to me to find fault. If that makes me pro Patriots on this then .... guilty as charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 I believed, from the time I first crunched the deflate #'s, that the science and protocols taken to ensure sound science, were terribly flawed and nowhere near satisfactory to me to find fault. If that makes me pro Patriots on this then .... guilty as charged. As a scientist, have you ever heard of Occum's Shaver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 As a scientist, have you ever heard of Occum's Shaver? Is he related to Occam's razor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Is he related to Occam's razor Is Occam that dollar-shave dude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Is he related to Occam's razor It's not a dude, it is a theory that says the simplest answer is usually right. Which is simpler?: Atmospheric conditions only on the Pats sideline on a cool but not cold day deflated footballs but only 11 of 12. The other was magically spared or A guys whose nickname is the deflator and upon whom Brady regularly showered gifts and who stole off with the footballs and disappeared may have deflated 11 footballs? and Brady had his phone destroyed a day before his meeting with the investigator and it may have been related to concerns about the investigation or multiple people guessed his phone number, called it, asked "Is this Tom Brady?" and he replied "yes" .....oops he needs a new number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 No! His positions correspond to mine. In addition, I rooted for the Pats in the SB against the Seahawks. So does that make my views suspicious or invalid? Am I a traitor to whatever imaginary cause? It makes your views a little suspicious as it suggests that you might be somewhat of a fan of the Patriots, and therefore might potentially have your perceptions skewed due to emotional biases.....similar to the concept that a Bills fan potentially may be skewed the other way due to emotional biases against the Pats/Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 It's not a dude, it is a theory that says the simplest answer is usually right. Which is simpler?: Atmospheric conditions only on the Pats sideline on a cool but not cold day deflated footballs but only 11 of 12. The other was magically spared or A guys whose nickname is the deflator and upon whom Brady regularly showered gifts and who stole off with the footballs and disappeared may have deflated 11 footballs? and Brady had his phone destroyed a day before his meeting with the investigator and it may have been related to concerns about the investigation or multiple people guessed his phone number, called it, asked "Is this Tom Brady?" and he replied "yes" .....oops he needs a new number it is a principle that suggests a KISS application but you misnamed it .... thus my reply. As for application of Occam's Razor in this case. I would say the very basic of simplest explanation's would fall directly on the fact that .... since there was no established protocol for taking accurate ball measurements (nor properly documented ones at that) ..... from the get go ..... then any, and everything, afterwards is ...... scientific junk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 it is a principle that suggests a KISS application but you misnamed it .... thus my reply. As for application of Occam's Razor in this case. I would say the very basic of simplest explanation's would fall directly on the fact that .... since there was no established protocol for taking accurate ball measurements (nor properly documented ones at that) ..... from the get go ..... then any, and everything, afterwards is ...... scientific junk! And the fact that the Colts balls deflated at a 50% lower rate in the same atmospheric conditions means nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 it is a principle that suggests a KISS application but you misnamed it .... thus my reply. As for application of Occam's Razor in this case. I would say the very basic of simplest explanation's would fall directly on the fact that .... since there was no established protocol for taking accurate ball measurements (nor properly documented ones at that) ..... from the get go ..... then any, and everything, afterwards is ...... scientific junk! First you say it is a dude and now he runs a school? Why not link his biography? Dude what does Mr. Educator make of a guy calling himself the deflator and getting boatloads of valuable crap from Brady? And Brady knowing everything, then nothing, then everything, then nothing, then everything? Does that make sense to him? BTW you are mistaken that he is a dude irregardless of his profession. It is a theory, not a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 And the fact that the Colts balls deflated at a 50% lower rate in the same atmospheric conditions means nothing? That would fall into a "more evidence" situation which, if validated, could change the simplest philosophy. Absent, fact based evidence, the application of Occam's Razor principle still rests on the basis that the fewest assumption model is most likely the correct one. If something is flawed to start, it's a basic and fundamental as one can get. First you say it is a dude and now he runs a school? Why not link his biography? Dude what does Mr. Educator make of a guy calling himself the deflator and getting boatloads of valuable crap from Brady? And Brady knowing everything, then nothing, then everything, then nothing, then everything? Does that make sense to him? BTW you are mistaken that he is a dude irregardless of his profession. It is a theory, not a person. Good grief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) That would fall into a "more evidence" situation which, if validated, could change the simplest philosophy. Absent, fact based evidence, the application of Occam's Razor principle still rests on the basis that the fewest assumption model is most likely the correct one. If something is flawed to start, it's a basic and fundamental as one can get. Good grief One assumption: A guy that calls himself the Deflator deflates things? Did I do it right? Edited August 7, 2015 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 because I find it interesting & it's what I'm paid so highly to do. Why do you continue to return to the same thread day after day saying the same thing with full knowledge that you won't change a single persons opinion? If this was not allowed, there would be few posters left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 One assumption: A guy that calls himself the Deflator deflates things? Did I do it right? Yes, that would make sense. But, it's not illegal to deflate things. So, your example isn't the simplest means of arriving at a valid conclusion. You need additional evidence, which further complicates matters and brings you further away from Occam's Razor principle ..... which, BTW, is actually named after a person .... who lived in Ockham England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, that would make sense. But, it's not illegal to deflate things. So, your example isn't the simplest means of arriving at a valid conclusion. You need additional evidence, which further complicates matters and brings you further away from Occam's Razor principle ..... which, BTW, is actually named after a person .... who lived in Ockham England. There is a ton of additional evidence given the fact that in his texts he called himself the deflator and specifically talked about inflating and deflating footballs based on the whim of Brady, but you know that already. Your ridiculous assertion basically states it is impossible for anyone to know anything ever because not every molecule was logged into or out of the football as it moved and there weren't atmospheric monitors placed on every blade of astroturf in the stadium. And this proves it is probable that no one ever touched anything. You are being completely ridiculous. And BTW I'm not going for the schoolmaster from England being unable to spell the name of his home town story you're putting out there. It doesn't even pass its own test. Edited August 7, 2015 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Yes, that would make sense. But, it's not illegal to deflate things. So, your example isn't the simplest means of arriving at a valid conclusion. You need additional evidence, which further complicates matters and brings you further away from Occam's Razor principle ..... which, BTW, is actually named after a person .... who lived in Ockham England. This (as many of your posts) is intellectually dishonest at best. People on here have been rather measured in their responses to you, and have even taken you at your word that you are a "scientist." With a post as reaching as this one, I have to wonder. Whether or not you are a "scientist" (quotation marks earned, at this point), you have abandoned any credibility as being open-minded, unbiased, or honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts